Thomas_I wrote: » Not quite so even handed, because CNN shows the Unionists rioting against the PSNI and that was cut out in the youtube video. I´m not so sure that there are plenty of Catholics being happy to remain as part of the UK and consider themselves British. Not in NI. I rather believe that some of them would rather move to GB where it is not a great deal whether you´re a Catholic or Protestant.
everdead.ie wrote: » Well i thought it was even handed due to the fact they just seemed to show what happened essentials PSNI blocked off the planned route. Then protesters scattered in every direction. Catholic/nationalist/resident starts throwing glass bottles at those passing kicks off a whole bout of rioting. PSNI take ages to clear the streets.
Thomas_I wrote: » It went quite so from point 1 to 3 but the part where Unionists are rioting against the PSNI is not shown in the youtoube videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxO-7UL70uI Compare it to the original from CNN with the whole coverage of that report, which you´ve brought yourself on these boards in the first placehttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/12/world/europe/northern-ireland-unrest/ As for point 4, I recommend that BBC News page:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21012517 PSNI is rather in a very difficult situation themselves. At least that´s the impression I´ve got from the news during the past weeks. More interesting than the statement of the PSNI is the fact that the other, the "silence people" of Belfast airing their "voice" against these rioters. That´s some kind of progress in this whole mess.
BrensBenz wrote: » Maybe, at the next council elections, and if the DUP and other Unionist parties can do a better job at persuading their people to vote, the flag will return to Belfast City Hall 24 / 7 / 365.
oscarBravo wrote: » That's an interesting point. If, hypothetically, a future unionist majority council voted to reinstate year-round flying of the union flag, would those who applaud the current democratic decision not to fly it year-round be equally supportive of a democratic decision to do so?
karma_ wrote: » And was there trouble from nationalists when the flag did fly all the time? I find this whole game of 'blame the nationalist' pretty pathetic.
BrensBenz wrote: » I've heard arguments that the Belfast riots are not about Belfast City Hall's new flag flying policy but it's very difficult for outsiders to find any logic to these riots. This quite well-argued stance vs. the thuggery seen on-screen just don't fit together. Maybe, at the next council elections, and if the DUP and other Unionist parties can do a better job at persuading their people to vote, the flag will return to Belfast City Hall 24 / 7 / 365. Until then, displaying their Britishness in line with and as often as every other UK city will have to do. Can we see a mass resignation of the city council to facilitate a new election and the overturning of this re-alignment with the rest of the UK or will images of thugs and their kids attacking and injuring the police and destroying their own community's property continue to be beamed across the world for years?
GRMA wrote: » SF have a perfectly fair policy. Equality, or neutrality. Both flags, or none. They compromised. Is that not what the GFA is supposed to be all about?
oscarBravo wrote: » With respect, that's not an answer either.
GRMA wrote: » The flag is flown all year round at some Unionist dominated councils. Are republicans out rioting or up in arms?
oscarBravo wrote: » If, hypothetically, a future unionist majority council voted to reinstate year-round flying of the union flag, would those who applaud the current democratic decision not to fly it year-round be equally supportive of a democratic decision to do so?
oscarBravo wrote: » Still not an answer.
SoulandForm wrote: » Its impossible to answer. Maybe they would; than again maybe they wouldnt.
Chuck Stone wrote: » Also, you're starting from the premise that all democratically arrived at decisions are equally virtuous which is wrong.
oscarBravo wrote: » I really don't see what's so complicated about it. The decision has been defended on the grounds that it was democratically made. I strongly suspect that that's a cynical defence; I'm testing the sincerity of the defence by asking the same people who say the decision is valid because it's democratic whether they'd support a democratic decision they disagreed with.
SoulandForm wrote: » ...you see Republicans as your enemy while you see Loyalists as just weird foreigners...
oscarBravo wrote: » Oh look. A personal attack in response to a reasoned argument. How refreshingly new and different.
SoulandForm wrote: » It wasnt meant as a personal attack, please forgive me that it came over that way.
But you do see Republicans as your political enemies dont you?
And you do see Loyalists as it least mildly eccentric foreigners dont you?
sure joe wrote: » what reasoned argument. would that be
oscarBravo wrote: » I don't have enemies, political or otherwise. As someone who's not particularly into nationalism in general, I tend not to lump people with labels like "foreigners", and I don't think there's much to choose in terms of eccentricity between the various tribes in Northern Ireland.
oscarBravo wrote: » The one in my posts you clearly didn't bother to read.
SoulandForm wrote: » Oh come you have political opinions, you have expressed them about Shell in Mayo, are not the anti-Shell your political enemies?
Okay so you believe all nordies are equally eccentric, fair enough, but that doesnt mean you dont see Loyalists as eccentric while there are plenty of Republicans in the Republic of Ireland who you do oppose politically.
oscarBravo wrote: » Having an opinion on someone's actions doesn't make them my enemies
SoulandForm wrote: » Yes it does- at least in a certain, but important, sense.
SoulandForm wrote: » Look if someone came on message board if they existed in those days after the Kingsmill massacre and said "well Loyalists would do the same you know" however correct the statement might be, you would think they were not exactly the most sensitive or copped on human being wouldnt you? Sorry oscar but your line of reasoning is dangerously close to that.
All I'm doing is pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to argue that the decision to stop flying the flag year-round should be accepted by the unionist community solely because it's a democratic one, if the person doing the arguing wouldn't be prepared to accept a similarly democratic decision to resume flying it year-round.
oscarBravo wrote: » Only in the sense that perpetuates tribal divisions. I don't have political enemies. You can describe them as my enemies if you want to project your prejudices onto me, but don't claim to speak for me. The hell it is. All I'm doing is pointing out that it's intellectually dishonest to argue that the decision to stop flying the flag year-round should be accepted by the unionist community solely because it's a democratic one, if the person doing the arguing wouldn't be prepared to accept a similarly democratic decision to resume flying it year-round. I understand that it's uncomfortable for some people being confronted with the brokenness of their own logic, but that discomfort doesn't magically repair the logic. It's very simple: if you wouldn't accept a democratic decision on a topic you felt strongly about, then don't be such a hypocrite as to demand that others accept a democratic decision on a topic that they feel equally strongly about.
